423 Phil. 515
VITUG, J.:
"WHEREFORE: 1) the appeal by plaintiffs-appellants, defendants-appellants, and the second set of intervenors are hereby DISMISSED, and WITHDRAWN as prayed for; and 2) the petition for annulment of judgment is DENIED DUE COURSE and is ordered DISMISSED."The decision of the Court of Appeals was based on the "Joint Manifestation and Motion" filed by defendant-appellant Fred Elizalde and the first set intervenors Jesus de los Santos and Rosita Flores, stating that, on 27 May 1999, the parties entered into an agreement, said to be an amicable settlement entered into by and between Fred Elizalde, as the first party, and Jesus delos Santos and Rosita Flores, represented by Atty. Romeo Robiso, as the second party. Instead of filing an appellant's brief, an ex-parte motion to withdraw the appeal was filed by Atty. Napoleon M. Victoriano, counsel of record of plaintiffs-appellants (herein complainants), on the basis of the compromise agreement.
The Court, in its minute resolution of 11 July 2001, noted the resolution of the IBP, and thereby considered the case closed and terminated. A motion for reconsideration was filed by complainants, alleging that the recommendation of the IBP was issued without conducting any hearing on the case. A review of the records of the case would indeed reflect that no hearing was conducted by the IBP, and that the recommendation was solely based on the pleadings, heretofore recited, filed by the parties."RESOLUTION NO. XIV-2001-78
Adm. Case No. 5165
Vicente Delos Santos, et al. vs.
Atty. Romeo R. Robiso and
Atty. Napoleon M. Victoriano
"RESOLVED to ADOPT and APPROVE, as it is hereby ADOPTED and APPROVED, the Report and Recommendation of the Investigating Commissioner of the above-entitled case, herein made part of this Resolution/Decision as Annex `A;' and, finding the recommendation fully supported by the evidence on record and the applicable laws and rules, the case against Respondents is DISMISSED for lack of merit."
"Complaints against lawyers for misconduct are normally addressed to the Court. If, at the outset, the Court finds a complaint to be clearly wanting in merit, it outrightly dismisses the case. If, however, the Court deems it necessary that further inquiry should be made, such as when the matter could not be resolved by merely evaluating the pleadings submitted, a referral is made to the IBP for a formal investigation of the case during which the parties are accorded an opportunity to be heard. An ex parte investigation may only be conducted when respondent fails to appear despite reasonable notice. Hereunder are some of the pertinent provisions of Rule 139-B of the Rules of Court on this matter; viz:The above guidelines were evidently missed by the IBP in proceeding with the administrative case. Considering the serious nature of the charges against respondents, it should have behooved the IBP to conduct a formal hearing of the case and only thereafter could its decision or recommendation, as the case may so be, be handed down."`SEC. 3. Duties of the National Grievance Investigator. - The National Grievance Investigators shall investigate all complaints against members of the Integrated Bar referred to them by the IBP Board of Governors."The procedures outlined by the Rules are meant to ensure that the innocents are spared from wrongful condemnation and that only the guilty are meted their just due. Obviously, these requirements cannot be taken lightly."
`x x x x x x x x x
`SEC. 5. Service or dismissal. - If the complaint appears to be meritorious, the Investigator shall direct that a copy thereof be served upon the respondent, requiring him to answer the same within fifteen (15) days from the date of service. If the complaint does not merit action, or if the answer shows to the satisfaction of the Investigator that the complaint is not meritorious, the same may be dismissed by the Board of Governors upon his recommendation. A copy of the resolution of dismissal shall be furnished the complainant and the Supreme Court which may review the case motu proprio or upon timely appeal of the complainant filed within 15 days from notice of the dismissal of the complaint.
`No investigation shall be interrupted or terminated by reason of the desistance, settlement, compromise, restitution, withdrawal of the charges, or failure of the complainant to prosecute the same.
`x x x x x x x x x.
`SEC. 8. Investigation. - Upon joinder of issues or upon failure of the respondent to answer, the Investigator shall, with deliberate speed, proceed with the investigation of the case. He shall have the power to issue subpoenas and administer oaths. The respondent shall be given full opportunity to defend himself, to present witnesses on his behalf and be heard by himself and counsel. However, if upon reasonable notice, the respondent fails to appear, the investigation shall proceed ex parte.
`The Investigator shall terminate the investigation within three (3) months from the date of its commencement, unless extended for good cause by the Board of Governors upon prior application.
`Willful failure to refusal to obey a subpoena or any other lawful order issued by the Investigator shall be dealt with as for indirect contempt of Court. The corresponding charge shall be filed by the Investigator before the IBP Board of Governors which shall require the alleged contemnor to show cause within ten (10) days from notice. The IBP Board of Governors may thereafter conduct hearings, if necessary, in accordance with the procedure set forth in this Rule for hearings before the Investigator. Such hearing shall as far as practicable be terminated within fifteen (15) days from its commencement. Thereafter, the IBP Board of Governors shall within a like period of fifteen (15) days issue a resolution setting forth its findings and recommendations, which shall forthwith be transmitted to the Supreme Court for final action and if warranted, the imposition of penalty.'